Supreme Court Cases: Plessy V. 14th Amendment
Plessy v. Ferguson
14th amendment- equal protection
Argued 1896, Decided-1896
Louisiana placed a law giving separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy- 7/8 Caucasian, sat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train, and refused to move to the car for blacks and was then arrested. The Court had to decide whether the Louisiana law was unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. The Court ruled that the state law was within its constitutional boundaries. The majority of this case supported the state-imposed racial segregation. The Court based their final decision on the separate but equal doctrine and agreed that the state had separate facilities for blacks and whites, which were equal. Brown stated that the 14th amendment was imposed to provide complete equality of races before the law. In …show more content…
conclusion, segregation does not constitute unlawful prejudice.
Powell v. Alabama
Argued/Decided-1932
14th amendment-Due Process, 6-right to counsel
Nine black teenagers were accused of raping two white women in Alabama. Officials went through the legal proceedings in a total of three trials in one day and all nine were sentenced to death. The Alabama law obligated the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys didn't talk with their clients and only showed up to represent them in trial. The case was merged with Patterson v. Alabama and Weems v. Alabama. Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes. The Court ruled that the trials deprived due process because the defendants were not given enough time to secure counsel in their defense. Justice George Sutherland noted that they didn't get the right to counsel as well. This case was an example of national constitutional defense in the field of criminal justice.
Minersville School District v. Gobitis
Argued/Decided-1940
1st/14-religion, equal protection
In Minersville, Pennsylvania, Lillian and William Gobitis were suspended from school for not saluting the flag. The Gobitis' were Jehovah's witnesses, and believed that such respect for the flag was forbidden by biblical commands. Did the mandatory flag salute infringe upon liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? No, in a 8-1 decision. The Court ruled that the flag salute was mandatory. The Court stated that the flag was an important symbol of national unity
Cox v. New Hampshire
Argued/Decided-1941
14t amendment- assembly, and worship
Some Jehovah's witnesses were convicted for being a part of a public parade without a permit. They gathered at their church and separated into smaller groups that marched along sidewalks with signs and they gave leaflets announcing a later meeting. They then asserted that their 14th amendment rights were violated including their rights to freedom of worship and freedom of assembly. The Court had to decide whether their 14th and 1st amendments were violated. The Court unanimously upheld the convictions of the Jehovah's Witnesses for engaging in a public parade without a permit.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Argued-1952, Reargued 1953, Decided 1954
14th amendment- equal protection in public schools
In the Court cases of Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward county, together they argued about black children being denied entrance into public schools attended by white children under laws allowing segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in buildings, curriculum, qualifications, and teacher salaries. The Court had to decide whether the segregation of children in public schools due to race deprived the minority children of equal protection of the 14th amendment. The Court ruled that racial segregation in public education deprives the minority children because it is "interpreted as a sign of inferiority."
Baker v. Carr
Argued-1961, Reargued-1961, Decided -1962
14th amendment- equal protection issues
Charles W. Baker and other citizens of Tennessee announced that the 1901 law made to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was completely disregarded. Baker's case showed how reapportionment efforts totally disregarded the important economic growth and population shifts within the state. The question that the Court had to decide was whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment. The Court ruled that legislative apportionment was a justifiable issue. Justice Brennan showed past examples in which the court intervened and correct the constitutional violations in matters to the state administration. Brennan stated that the 14th amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others elevated in this case merited judicial evaluation.
Robinson v. California
Argued/Decided-1962
14th and 8th amendment-cruel and unusual punishment
Lawrence Robinson was convicted and sentenced to 90days in jail, under a California Statue that made it a criminal offense "to be addicted to the use of narcotics." On appeal, a state appellate court confirmed Robinson's conviction. Was the California law an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment? In a 6-2 decision, the Court ruled that the law was cruel and unusual punishment and violated the 8th and 14th amendment. The Court made a law that stated it to be a criminal offense "to be mentally ill, a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease", and stated that a state could not punish someone because of their addiction. The Court also stated that the law was not directed at the purchase possession, or sale of illegal drugs
Gideon v. Mainwright
Argued-1963, Decided-1963
14th and 6th- rights to a fair trial, due process of law
Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in a Florida state court. He was unable to hire a lawyer because he lacked the funds, and when he asked the court to appoint him an attorney, they refused, stated that it was only required to appoint counsel to poor defendants in capital cases. Gideon then defended himself in trial, was then convicted, and the court gave him 5 years in a state prison. The court had to decide whether the state court's inability to appoint counsel of Gideon was a violation of his right to a fair trial and due process of law under the 6th and 14th amendment. In a unanimous opinion, the Court believed that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney. This court case overruled its 1942 Betts v. Brady, which the Court found the 6th amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, which should be made valid to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Justice Black stated that it was the "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be certain without the assistance of counsel.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.
Argued/Decided-1964
14th amendment- equal protection
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected business. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was charged with violating Title II. Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers? The Court ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to control local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional establishment. In conclusion, the Court noted that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.
Row v. Wade
Argued 1971, Reargued 1972, Decided 1973
14th- right to privacy
In this Court case, Roe, a resident of Texas, sought after an abortion to end her pregnancy. However, Texas law did not allow abortions unless it would save the woman's life. In this Court case, the Court granted Roe certiorari, and heard arguments twice. In the first Court hearing, Roe's opposition was Jay Floyd. Thurgood Marshal and Justice Potter Stewart heavily questioned roe's new opponent, Robert Flowers. In this case, the question that Court had to decide was whether the Constitution allows for a women's right whether she wants to have an abortion or not. The Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion fell under the right to privacy in the 14th amendment. The Court ruling gave woman independence over her pregnancy for the 1st trimester and gave distinct levels of state interest for the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Due to this Court case, 46 states were affected by the ruling.
Reed v. Reed
Argued/Decided-1971
14th amendment- equal protection
An Idaho Probate Code stated that "males must be preferred to females" in choosing administrators of estates. After their son died, Sally and Cecil Reed wanted to be named the administrator of their sons's estate (separated). The Probate code appointed Cecil administrator and Sally brought the law in court. Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the choice can not be lawfully decided on the basis of sex because it forbade the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Furman v. Georgia
Argued/Decided-1972
8th and 14th- cruel and unusual punishment-death penalty
Furman was robbing a house when someone saw him. His gun went off when he tripped and he killed a resident of the house. He was then convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas were decided along with the Furman case. The cases challenged the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions. Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments? Yes, in the Courts one page per curiam opinion. The Court ruled that the death penalty in these cases were cruel and unusual punishments and violated the Constitution. Justice Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all cases.
Gregg v. Georgia
Argued/Decided-1976
8 and 14- cruel and unusual punishment-death penalty
Gregg was found by guilty of armed robbery and murder by the jury and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg stated that his sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the 8th and 14th amendments. (Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina - all death penalty). Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? No, in a 7-2 decision. The Court ruled that the death punishment didn't violate the 8th and 14th amendments under the circumstances. Georgia's death penalty statute makes sure the death penalty requires a proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases.
Woodson v. North Carolina
Argued-1976, Decided-1976
8th and 14th amendment- criminal procedure: cruel + unusual punishment, death penalty
North Carolina made the death penalty mandatory for all convicted 1st degree murderers. James Woodson was found guilty, and was then sentenced to death. Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Gregg v. Georgia. The Court had to decide whether the death penalty law violated the 8th and 14th amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the NC law was unconstitutional. The law "departed markedly from contemporary standards, no standards to guide juries in their exercise of "the power to determine which 1st degree murderers shall live and which shall die", and finally the statute failed to allow consideration of the character and record of individual defendants before inflicting the death penalty.
Rostker v. Goldberg
Argued/Decided-1981
14th amendment-equal protection, Due Process-
Jimmy Carter started the draft process, after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the 1980's. Congress agreed, but did not think that the Military Selective Service Act should be amended to include females. Many men challenged the "constitutionality" of MSSA, and the challenge was continued by a district court. Did the MSSA's gender distinctions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Did the MSSA's gender distinctions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that Congress's choice to not include women didn't violate the Due Process Clause. The Court ruled that men and women are not "similarly situated" for the purposes of the draft process. The Court also upheld Congress's ruling that military problems would be created by drafting women for noncombat roles were sufficient to justify the Military Selective Service Act.
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Argued/Decided-1984
4th and 14th amendment- search and seizure
T.L.O, 14-year-old girl, was found smoking in the girls bathroom at her high school. Her principal questioned her and searched her purse to find a bag of marijuana and other drugs. Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? No. The Court ruled that the search did not violate the Constitution. The occurrence of rolling papers in the purse gave reasonable suspicion to the principal that T.L.O. may have been carrying drugs, and which then justified the search through her purse.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Argued/Decided-1989
14th amendment-equal protection
Missouri placed many restrictions on abortions, the state's preamble stated that "the life of each human begins at conception", restrictions such as public employees and facilities were not to be used in helping mothers that would die to to abortions, counseling was prohibited, and physicians ere to perform viability tests to women who were in their 20- or more week of pregnancy. The restrictions were shut down by lower courts. Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The court ruled that none of the provisions of the Missouri legislation was unconstitutional. The preamble didn't have a specific manner for the purposes of prohibiting abortions, and as a result did not present a constitutional question. The Due Process Clause didn't obligated states to go into the area of abortion, and didn't give the govt. the right in the search of constitutional rights. The Court noted that no case that was related to the counseling provisions of the law. The Court sustained the viability testing requirements, stating that the state's interest in shielding a life could come into reality before the point of viability. The Court then concluded by stating that it would not revise the vital parts of the Roe v. Wade case.
Metro Broadcasting inc. v. FCC
Argued/Decided-1990
14th amendment-equal protection
The first policy challenged by Metro Broad Casting was that minority applicants for broadcast licenses were given inclination if all other pertinent factors were equal. The second policy (distress sale) permitted broadcasters in danger of losing their licenses to sell their station to minority purchasers before the FCC ruled on the practicality of the troubled stations. The 2nd policy was challenged by Shurberg Broadcasting of Hartford Inc. This case was merged with Astroline Communications Co. v. Shurberg Broadcasting, in which Faith Center Inc., in which Faith Center made a "distress sale" of its TV license to a minority outfit possessed by Astroline. Shurberg challenged the FCC's approval of Faith Center's sale to Astroline. Did the FCC's minority preference policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? No, in a 5-4 decision. The Court ruled that the FCC's minority preference policies were constitutional because they were aimed at the advancement of legitimate congressional objectives for program diversity. The FCC's minority preference policies were related to Congress's interest in managing the public a diverse collection of programming options. The accessibility of program diversity serves the entire viewing and listening public, and is consequently reliable with First Amendment values. The Court stated that the FCC's minority preference policy did not excessively burden non minorities. The FCC did not set the number of distress sales, and could only appeal to them in a small number of cases, when no competing bids were filed and the licensee chosen to sell at a lower price rather than risk an FCC investigation.
Illinois v. Perkins
Argued/Decided-1990
5th and 14th amendment- Miranda warnings
Perkins (in jail) admitted to murder to an undercover police officer who was posing as an inmate. Did the undercover police officer violate the accused Miranda rights as protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? The Court ruled that conv. between suspects and undercover officers are not given Miranda protection since they are not done in a "police dominated atmosphere" where force to confess is present. Justice Kennedy stated there was no danger of bullying in this case.
Shaw v. Reno
Argued/Decided-1993
14th amendment-equal protection
NC tried to make a reapportionment plan, however, the U.S.
Attorney General rejected it because the plan created only one black-majority district. NC then gave a second plan making two black-majority districts, one of which was no wider than the interstate road along with it stretched. Five residents of NC challenged the constitutionality of this shaped district, saying that its only point was to secure the election of additional black representatives. The District Court (3judges) held that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents of NC then appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Yes, the Court ruled that even though NC's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resultant district shape was unusual enough to say that it made an effort to separate voters into districts based on race. The Court stated that the District Court would have to decide whether or not some convincing governmental interest justified NC's
plan.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena
Argued/Decided-1995
14th amendment-equal protection clause
Adarand (contractor specializing in highway guardrail work) presented the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the USD of Transportation. The Prime contractor would get reimbursement if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." Subcontractor, Gonzales Construction company, was given the work, because it was a minority business, but Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have taken Adarand's bid if it had not been for the extra payment for hiring Gonzales. Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Yes, overruling Metro Broadcasting. The Court ruled that all racial classifications must pass strict review. The Court noted that compensation programs which are based on disadvantage, instead of race, would be assessed under lower equal protection standards. The Court had to decide whether the USDT program pleased strict scrutiny.
Shaw v. Hunt
Argued-1995, Decided-1996
14th amendment- equal protection
People in NC made a plan to create two congressional districts on the ground that the proposed districts were racially gerrymandered. A three judge District Court dismissed the act only to have its decision be reverse and remanded to it by the Supreme Court. The District Court stated that the redistricting plans to be racially modified, therefore, making the plans unconstitutional. The matters were then appealed to the Supreme Court. Does North Carolina's redistricting plan constitute racial gerrymandering in violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause? Yes, in a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice Rehnquist. The Court held that some of the appellants lacked proper position to challenge the redistricting plan. The appellants' admission that the districts' were primarily intended to create black voting majorities. The Court stated that the redistricting plans violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.
body with out Williams statement.
United States v. Virginia
Argued/Decided-1996
14th amendment- Equal protection
VMI was VA's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The USA sued Virginia and VMI, saying that the male only admission was against the 14th amendment. On appeal from a District Court ruling favoring VMI (4th circuit reversed), found VMI's admission policy to be unconstitutional. VA proposed to create VA women's Institute for Leadership as a parallel program for women. On appeal from the District Court's affirmation of the plan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the difference in prestige between the VMI and VWIL, the two programs would offer "substantively comparable" educational benefits. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court. Does Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? No, in a 7-1 decision. The Court ruled that VMI's male only admission policy was unconstitutional, because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender- biased admission policy, which violated the 14th amendment. Va's VWIL didn't offer the same benefits as the men (training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial, or alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords its male cadets). Finally, the 4th Circuit's "substantive comparability" between VMI and VWIL was misplaced.
14th amendment- equal protection
Argued 1896, Decided-1896
Louisiana placed a law giving separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy- 7/8 Caucasian, sat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train, and refused to move to the car for blacks and was then arrested. The Court had to decide whether the Louisiana law was unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. The Court ruled that the state law was within its constitutional boundaries. The majority of this case supported the state-imposed racial segregation. The Court based their final decision on the separate but equal doctrine and agreed that the state had separate facilities for blacks and whites, which were equal. Brown stated that the 14th amendment was imposed to provide complete equality of races before the law. In …show more content…
conclusion, segregation does not constitute unlawful prejudice.
Powell v. Alabama
Argued/Decided-1932
14th amendment-Due Process, 6-right to counsel
Nine black teenagers were accused of raping two white women in Alabama. Officials went through the legal proceedings in a total of three trials in one day and all nine were sentenced to death. The Alabama law obligated the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys didn't talk with their clients and only showed up to represent them in trial. The case was merged with Patterson v. Alabama and Weems v. Alabama. Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes. The Court ruled that the trials deprived due process because the defendants were not given enough time to secure counsel in their defense. Justice George Sutherland noted that they didn't get the right to counsel as well. This case was an example of national constitutional defense in the field of criminal justice.
Minersville School District v. Gobitis
Argued/Decided-1940
1st/14-religion, equal protection
In Minersville, Pennsylvania, Lillian and William Gobitis were suspended from school for not saluting the flag. The Gobitis' were Jehovah's witnesses, and believed that such respect for the flag was forbidden by biblical commands. Did the mandatory flag salute infringe upon liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? No, in a 8-1 decision. The Court ruled that the flag salute was mandatory. The Court stated that the flag was an important symbol of national unity
Cox v. New Hampshire
Argued/Decided-1941
14t amendment- assembly, and worship
Some Jehovah's witnesses were convicted for being a part of a public parade without a permit. They gathered at their church and separated into smaller groups that marched along sidewalks with signs and they gave leaflets announcing a later meeting. They then asserted that their 14th amendment rights were violated including their rights to freedom of worship and freedom of assembly. The Court had to decide whether their 14th and 1st amendments were violated. The Court unanimously upheld the convictions of the Jehovah's Witnesses for engaging in a public parade without a permit.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Argued-1952, Reargued 1953, Decided 1954
14th amendment- equal protection in public schools
In the Court cases of Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward county, together they argued about black children being denied entrance into public schools attended by white children under laws allowing segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in buildings, curriculum, qualifications, and teacher salaries. The Court had to decide whether the segregation of children in public schools due to race deprived the minority children of equal protection of the 14th amendment. The Court ruled that racial segregation in public education deprives the minority children because it is "interpreted as a sign of inferiority."
Baker v. Carr
Argued-1961, Reargued-1961, Decided -1962
14th amendment- equal protection issues
Charles W. Baker and other citizens of Tennessee announced that the 1901 law made to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was completely disregarded. Baker's case showed how reapportionment efforts totally disregarded the important economic growth and population shifts within the state. The question that the Court had to decide was whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment. The Court ruled that legislative apportionment was a justifiable issue. Justice Brennan showed past examples in which the court intervened and correct the constitutional violations in matters to the state administration. Brennan stated that the 14th amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others elevated in this case merited judicial evaluation.
Robinson v. California
Argued/Decided-1962
14th and 8th amendment-cruel and unusual punishment
Lawrence Robinson was convicted and sentenced to 90days in jail, under a California Statue that made it a criminal offense "to be addicted to the use of narcotics." On appeal, a state appellate court confirmed Robinson's conviction. Was the California law an infliction of cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment? In a 6-2 decision, the Court ruled that the law was cruel and unusual punishment and violated the 8th and 14th amendment. The Court made a law that stated it to be a criminal offense "to be mentally ill, a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease", and stated that a state could not punish someone because of their addiction. The Court also stated that the law was not directed at the purchase possession, or sale of illegal drugs
Gideon v. Mainwright
Argued-1963, Decided-1963
14th and 6th- rights to a fair trial, due process of law
Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in a Florida state court. He was unable to hire a lawyer because he lacked the funds, and when he asked the court to appoint him an attorney, they refused, stated that it was only required to appoint counsel to poor defendants in capital cases. Gideon then defended himself in trial, was then convicted, and the court gave him 5 years in a state prison. The court had to decide whether the state court's inability to appoint counsel of Gideon was a violation of his right to a fair trial and due process of law under the 6th and 14th amendment. In a unanimous opinion, the Court believed that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney. This court case overruled its 1942 Betts v. Brady, which the Court found the 6th amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, which should be made valid to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Justice Black stated that it was the "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be certain without the assistance of counsel.
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.
Argued/Decided-1964
14th amendment- equal protection
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited racial discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected business. The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, refused to accept Black Americans and was charged with violating Title II. Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers? The Court ruled that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to control local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional establishment. In conclusion, the Court noted that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.
Row v. Wade
Argued 1971, Reargued 1972, Decided 1973
14th- right to privacy
In this Court case, Roe, a resident of Texas, sought after an abortion to end her pregnancy. However, Texas law did not allow abortions unless it would save the woman's life. In this Court case, the Court granted Roe certiorari, and heard arguments twice. In the first Court hearing, Roe's opposition was Jay Floyd. Thurgood Marshal and Justice Potter Stewart heavily questioned roe's new opponent, Robert Flowers. In this case, the question that Court had to decide was whether the Constitution allows for a women's right whether she wants to have an abortion or not. The Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion fell under the right to privacy in the 14th amendment. The Court ruling gave woman independence over her pregnancy for the 1st trimester and gave distinct levels of state interest for the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Due to this Court case, 46 states were affected by the ruling.
Reed v. Reed
Argued/Decided-1971
14th amendment- equal protection
An Idaho Probate Code stated that "males must be preferred to females" in choosing administrators of estates. After their son died, Sally and Cecil Reed wanted to be named the administrator of their sons's estate (separated). The Probate code appointed Cecil administrator and Sally brought the law in court. Did the Idaho Probate Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the choice can not be lawfully decided on the basis of sex because it forbade the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Furman v. Georgia
Argued/Decided-1972
8th and 14th- cruel and unusual punishment-death penalty
Furman was robbing a house when someone saw him. His gun went off when he tripped and he killed a resident of the house. He was then convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas were decided along with the Furman case. The cases challenged the constitutionality of the death sentence for rape and murder convictions. Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments? Yes, in the Courts one page per curiam opinion. The Court ruled that the death penalty in these cases were cruel and unusual punishments and violated the Constitution. Justice Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all cases.
Gregg v. Georgia
Argued/Decided-1976
8 and 14- cruel and unusual punishment-death penalty
Gregg was found by guilty of armed robbery and murder by the jury and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg stated that his sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the 8th and 14th amendments. (Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina - all death penalty). Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? No, in a 7-2 decision. The Court ruled that the death punishment didn't violate the 8th and 14th amendments under the circumstances. Georgia's death penalty statute makes sure the death penalty requires a proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases.
Woodson v. North Carolina
Argued-1976, Decided-1976
8th and 14th amendment- criminal procedure: cruel + unusual punishment, death penalty
North Carolina made the death penalty mandatory for all convicted 1st degree murderers. James Woodson was found guilty, and was then sentenced to death. Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Gregg v. Georgia. The Court had to decide whether the death penalty law violated the 8th and 14th amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the NC law was unconstitutional. The law "departed markedly from contemporary standards, no standards to guide juries in their exercise of "the power to determine which 1st degree murderers shall live and which shall die", and finally the statute failed to allow consideration of the character and record of individual defendants before inflicting the death penalty.
Rostker v. Goldberg
Argued/Decided-1981
14th amendment-equal protection, Due Process-
Jimmy Carter started the draft process, after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the 1980's. Congress agreed, but did not think that the Military Selective Service Act should be amended to include females. Many men challenged the "constitutionality" of MSSA, and the challenge was continued by a district court. Did the MSSA's gender distinctions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? Did the MSSA's gender distinctions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that Congress's choice to not include women didn't violate the Due Process Clause. The Court ruled that men and women are not "similarly situated" for the purposes of the draft process. The Court also upheld Congress's ruling that military problems would be created by drafting women for noncombat roles were sufficient to justify the Military Selective Service Act.
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Argued/Decided-1984
4th and 14th amendment- search and seizure
T.L.O, 14-year-old girl, was found smoking in the girls bathroom at her high school. Her principal questioned her and searched her purse to find a bag of marijuana and other drugs. Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? No. The Court ruled that the search did not violate the Constitution. The occurrence of rolling papers in the purse gave reasonable suspicion to the principal that T.L.O. may have been carrying drugs, and which then justified the search through her purse.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Argued/Decided-1989
14th amendment-equal protection
Missouri placed many restrictions on abortions, the state's preamble stated that "the life of each human begins at conception", restrictions such as public employees and facilities were not to be used in helping mothers that would die to to abortions, counseling was prohibited, and physicians ere to perform viability tests to women who were in their 20- or more week of pregnancy. The restrictions were shut down by lower courts. Did the Missouri restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to privacy or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The court ruled that none of the provisions of the Missouri legislation was unconstitutional. The preamble didn't have a specific manner for the purposes of prohibiting abortions, and as a result did not present a constitutional question. The Due Process Clause didn't obligated states to go into the area of abortion, and didn't give the govt. the right in the search of constitutional rights. The Court noted that no case that was related to the counseling provisions of the law. The Court sustained the viability testing requirements, stating that the state's interest in shielding a life could come into reality before the point of viability. The Court then concluded by stating that it would not revise the vital parts of the Roe v. Wade case.
Metro Broadcasting inc. v. FCC
Argued/Decided-1990
14th amendment-equal protection
The first policy challenged by Metro Broad Casting was that minority applicants for broadcast licenses were given inclination if all other pertinent factors were equal. The second policy (distress sale) permitted broadcasters in danger of losing their licenses to sell their station to minority purchasers before the FCC ruled on the practicality of the troubled stations. The 2nd policy was challenged by Shurberg Broadcasting of Hartford Inc. This case was merged with Astroline Communications Co. v. Shurberg Broadcasting, in which Faith Center Inc., in which Faith Center made a "distress sale" of its TV license to a minority outfit possessed by Astroline. Shurberg challenged the FCC's approval of Faith Center's sale to Astroline. Did the FCC's minority preference policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? No, in a 5-4 decision. The Court ruled that the FCC's minority preference policies were constitutional because they were aimed at the advancement of legitimate congressional objectives for program diversity. The FCC's minority preference policies were related to Congress's interest in managing the public a diverse collection of programming options. The accessibility of program diversity serves the entire viewing and listening public, and is consequently reliable with First Amendment values. The Court stated that the FCC's minority preference policy did not excessively burden non minorities. The FCC did not set the number of distress sales, and could only appeal to them in a small number of cases, when no competing bids were filed and the licensee chosen to sell at a lower price rather than risk an FCC investigation.
Illinois v. Perkins
Argued/Decided-1990
5th and 14th amendment- Miranda warnings
Perkins (in jail) admitted to murder to an undercover police officer who was posing as an inmate. Did the undercover police officer violate the accused Miranda rights as protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? The Court ruled that conv. between suspects and undercover officers are not given Miranda protection since they are not done in a "police dominated atmosphere" where force to confess is present. Justice Kennedy stated there was no danger of bullying in this case.
Shaw v. Reno
Argued/Decided-1993
14th amendment-equal protection
NC tried to make a reapportionment plan, however, the U.S.
Attorney General rejected it because the plan created only one black-majority district. NC then gave a second plan making two black-majority districts, one of which was no wider than the interstate road along with it stretched. Five residents of NC challenged the constitutionality of this shaped district, saying that its only point was to secure the election of additional black representatives. The District Court (3judges) held that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents of NC then appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Yes, the Court ruled that even though NC's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resultant district shape was unusual enough to say that it made an effort to separate voters into districts based on race. The Court stated that the District Court would have to decide whether or not some convincing governmental interest justified NC's
plan.
Adarand Constructors v. Pena
Argued/Decided-1995
14th amendment-equal protection clause
Adarand (contractor specializing in highway guardrail work) presented the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the USD of Transportation. The Prime contractor would get reimbursement if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." Subcontractor, Gonzales Construction company, was given the work, because it was a minority business, but Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have taken Adarand's bid if it had not been for the extra payment for hiring Gonzales. Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Yes, overruling Metro Broadcasting. The Court ruled that all racial classifications must pass strict review. The Court noted that compensation programs which are based on disadvantage, instead of race, would be assessed under lower equal protection standards. The Court had to decide whether the USDT program pleased strict scrutiny.
Shaw v. Hunt
Argued-1995, Decided-1996
14th amendment- equal protection
People in NC made a plan to create two congressional districts on the ground that the proposed districts were racially gerrymandered. A three judge District Court dismissed the act only to have its decision be reverse and remanded to it by the Supreme Court. The District Court stated that the redistricting plans to be racially modified, therefore, making the plans unconstitutional. The matters were then appealed to the Supreme Court. Does North Carolina's redistricting plan constitute racial gerrymandering in violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause? Yes, in a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice Rehnquist. The Court held that some of the appellants lacked proper position to challenge the redistricting plan. The appellants' admission that the districts' were primarily intended to create black voting majorities. The Court stated that the redistricting plans violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.
body with out Williams statement.
United States v. Virginia
Argued/Decided-1996
14th amendment- Equal protection
VMI was VA's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The USA sued Virginia and VMI, saying that the male only admission was against the 14th amendment. On appeal from a District Court ruling favoring VMI (4th circuit reversed), found VMI's admission policy to be unconstitutional. VA proposed to create VA women's Institute for Leadership as a parallel program for women. On appeal from the District Court's affirmation of the plan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the difference in prestige between the VMI and VWIL, the two programs would offer "substantively comparable" educational benefits. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court. Does Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? No, in a 7-1 decision. The Court ruled that VMI's male only admission policy was unconstitutional, because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender- biased admission policy, which violated the 14th amendment. Va's VWIL didn't offer the same benefits as the men (training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial, or alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords its male cadets). Finally, the 4th Circuit's "substantive comparability" between VMI and VWIL was misplaced.